Food in Space from Hydrogen Oxidizing Bacteria Acta Astronautica

1 Food in space from hydrogen oxidizing bacteria Acta Astronautica This version August 2020 Kyle A. Alvarado*,a,b, J. B. García Martíneza, Silvio Matassac, Joseph Egbejimbaa,b, David Denkenbergera,b a Alliance to Feed the Earth in Disasters (ALLFED), Fairbanks, AK, USA b University of Alaska Fairbanks, Fairbanks, AK, USA 99775 c Department of Civil, Architectural and Environmental Engineering, University of Napoli Federico II, Via Claudio 21, 80125, Napoli, Italy * Correspondence: [email protected], +1 907 474 7136 ORCID IDs: Kyle A. Alvarado https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6489-2237 Juan B. García Martínez https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8761-7470 David Denkenberger http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6773-6405 Abstract: The cost of launching food into space is very high. An alternative is to make food during missions using methods such as artificial light photosynthesis, greenhouse, nonbiological synthesis of food, electric bacteria, and hydrogen oxidizing bacteria (HOB). This study compares prepackaged food, artificial light microalgae, and HOB. The dominant factor for each alternative is its relative mass due to high fuel cost needed to launch a payload into space. Thus, alternatives were evaluated using an equivalent system mass (ESM) technique developed by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Three distinct missions with a crew of 5 for a duration of 3 years were analyzed; including the International Space Station (ISS), the Moon, and Mars. The components of ESM considered were apparent mass, heat rejection, power, and pressurized volume. The selected power source for all systems was nuclear power. Electricity to biomass efficiencies were calculated for space to be 18% and 4.0% for HOB and microalgae, respectively. This study indicates that growing HOB is the least expensive alternative. The ESM of the HOB is on average a factor of 2.8 and 5.5 less than prepackaged food and microalgae, respectively. This alternative food study also relates to feeding Earth during a global agricultural catastrophe. Benefits of HOB include recycling wastes including CO2 and producing O2. Practical systems would involve a variety of food sources. Keywords (6): Alternative Food; Sustainability; Single Cell Protein; Space; Global Catastrophic Risks; Existential Risks 2 1 Introduction A food production method using hydrogen-oxidizing bacteria (HOB), a single cell protein (SCP) source, was first developed by microbiologists in 1965 [1] and soon after experimented for applications in space by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) [2]. This technology is currently being developed for human and animal consumption [3–5]. The process typically involves electrolysis; using electricity to split water into oxygen and hydrogen and provide them to hydrogen-oxidizing bacteria for their growth. HOB, specifically Cupriavidus necator, have been experimentally found to contain ~50% protein content and 25% carbohydrates [6]. They have an amino acid composition similar to or better than algae or soybeans [7] and pasteurization and drying into a fine powder produces a texture comparable to dried milk [8]. According to Finnish food company, Solar Foods, their HOB SCP product called Solein looks and tastes like wheat flour [9]. Growth occurs inside a bioreactor similar to other fermentation processes and requires nutrients including ammonia, sulfates, and phosphates. Using current technology, the efficiency from electricity to calories from SCP is around 20% [10]. By contrast, the conversion of electricity into food via photosynthesis is around 3% [11]. This alternative food source would be valuable in space missions and in Earth catastrophes that disrupt agriculture, such as abrupt climate change or supervolcanic eruption. Concurrent research has been completed on the subject of feeding Earth during a crop-inhibiting global catastrophe, such as nuclear winter. The research investigates feeding Earth using HOB quickly and cost effectively [12]. Similar concepts could be applied for feeding people in refuges to repopulate the Earth, which could be in space, underground, or under water [13,14]. In either case, HOB would need to be supplemented with other foods to form a complete diet. In space or refuges, this could take the form of electroactive bacteria (EAB) SCP, nonbiologically synthesized food, photosynthetically produced food with artificial light or greenhouses (space only), or prepackaged food. In the case of global catastrophes, other alternative foods include cellulosic sugar, seaweed, greenhouses [15], methane SCP, EAB SCP, nonbiological synthesized food, or ruminants. Alternative foods differ in cost and scaling ability based on resource availability, however, they can potentially meet diverse nutritional needs [16]. This study compares the cost of current space food alternatives, including dry prepackaged food and photosynthetically grown microalgae SCP [17], to the cost of producing SCP from hydrogen using electrolysis. The cost to transport a payload, i.e. food, is proportional to the mass of that payload [18] and the fuel required increases exponentially with the velocity reached [19]; therefore, less mass launched means less cost for the mission. This project aims for the production of food for deep space and lunar exploration and increases the viable time in space through providing effectively produced food. Food is supplied to the International Space Station (ISS) in Low Earth Orbit (LEO) every 90 days [20], or approximately four times per year. These resupply missions could be significantly reduced by using a bioreactor system. 2 Methods This study was completed from a synthesis of literature on emerging HOB technology, establishing the procedure for evaluating alternatives for space, and leveraging other investigations on alternative foods. For equitable comparison, each food alternative was treated as the exclusive food source for its mission. In practice, a variety of food sources should be used in space to provide nutritional diversity. Since protein from the SCP sources and carbohydrates from dry prepackaged food have similar energy density, 4 kcal/g dry [21,22], all three alternatives are considered equal in energy provision to astronauts. Conservative estimates were used suitably to give an advantage to prepackaged food and microalgae SCP alternatives. 2.1 Calculation of equivalent system mass Using NASA’s equivalent system mass (ESM) method [18], the aggregate mass of each alternative was calculated for three distinct missions: the ISS, the Moon, and Mars. The equation for the ESM of a subsystem during a segment of the mission, with the applied location factor Leq, is: 3 Leq . [(MI . SFI) + (VI . Veq) + (P . Peq) + (C . Ceq) + (CT . D . CTeq) + (MTD . D . SFTD) + (VTD . D . Veq)] (Eq. 1) The essential parameters, explained by [18], include mass, power, cooling (or in this study, heat rejection), and crew time. The ESM of a subsystem is the sum of the mass equivalencies of these parameters. Variables of a subsystem include initial (or apparent) mass MI, initial mass stowage factor SFI, initial pressurized volume VI, power P, heat rejection C, crew time CT, mission segment duration D, time- or event-dependent mass MTD, mass stowage factor SFTD, and pressurized volume VTD, and mass equivalency factors for pressurized volume Veq, power Peq, heat rejection Ceq, and crew time CTeq. Certain mission specifications are held the same for each mission to support comparability. The selected mission duration for each mission was 3 years with a crew of 5, similar to current proposed manned Mars missions (Ansdell et al. 2011). Mass equivalency factors for pressurized volume, power, and heat rejection were collected from NASA’s Baseline Values and Assumptions Document (BVAD) [23], unless otherwise specified. Mass equivalency factors for pressurized volume were obtained for a shielded aerodynamic crew capsule; 66.7 kg/m3 for ISS missions, 80.8 kg/m3 for Moon missions, and 215.5 kg/m3 for Mars missions. The mass equivalency factor for powering the bioreactor systems, 76 kg/kWelectrical, was collected from a Brayton cycle nuclear reactor producing 20 kWelectrical. The same value was used for the prepackaged food alternative. Mass equivalency factors for heat rejection for Moon and Mars missions were obtained as 65 and 60 kg/kWthermal, respectively. This value on ISS missions was calculated based on the ISS Heat Rejection System (HRS), which weighs 6,736 kg and has a capability of rejecting 70 kW [24]. Heat rejection from the nuclear reactor was not considered since, in practice, its heat would be rejected into space [23]; in addition, the selected nuclear reactor from the BVAD contains a heat rejection system and is included in the power requirement. Heat rejection for the bioreactors was considered the same as the power requirement since all power would end up as heat from growing food and human metabolism. Similarly, the power input to the ECLSS was considered to be rejected as heat. In reality, heat would be released by astronauts’ metabolism, but energy is contained in the jettisoned methane, so we estimate that these effects counteract. Missions were divided into segments to account for changing propulsion and changing ESM. A segmented approach was considered for this study to involve the progressively decreasing apparent mass of prepackaged food. Single factors that sum each mission’s segments were estimated for simplicity. Location factors were found for different segments of Moon and Mars missions, summarized in Table 3.18 of the BVAD [23]. A reference of 1.0 was used for launching a payload to LEO. Six distinct segments for Moon and Mars missions involving fuel consumption include Earth’s surface to LEO, LEO to a celestial body’s orbit, orbit to surface, surface back to orbit, orbit to LEO, and LEO to Earth’s surface. These segments were combined into one trip by applying known location factors from Table 3.18, involving: (1) the reference from Earth’s surface to LEO, (2) LEO to the celestial body’s orbit, (3) LEO to the celestial body’s surface then back to the celestial body’s orbit, and (4) LEO to the celestial body’s orbit then back to LEO and down to Earth.

Load more